Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Coomber (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Coomber

Yvonne Coomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we are again, nothing much has changed since the last afd, at least nothing significant to warrant any more coverage than when we previously deleted it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. A minor artist with matching minor quality references. Nothing that approaches WP:NARTIST.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. The last source, "affordable art fair" is a pay-to-play online gallery for selling paintings.96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and blacklist saatchiart.com no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NARTIST, as the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV concerning her work.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt, and blacklist saatchiart.com. --Theredproject (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all the pages that include saatchiart.com: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=saatchiart.com --Theredproject (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about getting them blacklisted?96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be blacklisted. Why should Saatchi Art be blacklisted? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is like Artsy, without the editorial, and without any curatorial process. ANYONE can make a page. They bought the name from the Saatchi Gallery, but have turned it into an online marketplace. They are trading on the historical value of the name Saatchi, but it is an entirely different entity.--Theredproject (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not spam. WP:BLACKLIST says "The spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It mostly lists spammers, but also includes URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting)." Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that ISSU is not a reliable source: it is self-publishing and promotion.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Saatchi Art was a reliable source. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of the question is not whether Saatchi Art is a reliable source but whether it is spam, and I don't mean the luncheon meat. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that matters here is that Saatchi Art is not reliable source. Whether it is spam probably should not be settled here, but at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions. I have removed the suggestion to blacklist. Vexations (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. The recognition achieved thus far is considerable but the reliable sourcing seems too weak to justify a standalone article at this time. I certainly wish the artist well with future endeavors. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NARTIST. Or redirect to a plausible search term if one exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced. NANExcella (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.